Elite Runner X does bad thing Y and he is still fast

[Sasha Pachev]

Ok, let's start a long discussion. We've all heard, and some of us may have even made the following argument:

Elite Runner X does bad thing Y and he is still fast. Therefore doing the bad thing Y will not make me a slower runner.

Compare that with this argument:

My friend's grandpa smoke and drank and lived to 90. Therefore, smoking and drinking will not reduce my life span.

And some more food for thought:

Back in the 40s - 50s smoking among endurance athletes was a lot more common that it is today. I am not exactly sure how fast a potentially 2:10 marathoner who smokes could run a marathon, but based on looking at the winning times of Boston in those years, I think 2:30 - 2:35 would be a safe guess. So can you imagine living in the 50s when so many people smoked, that those who had the talent to run 2:10 would smoke themselves down to 2:30? The population that had the 2:10 talent, did not smoke, and would try to run was so small that for a while it was not possible to demonstrate the devastatingly harmful effects of smoking via marathon performance of the elites.

How does this apply to today? The elite marathoners of today do not smoke, but they use alcohol and caffeine. So many do that it becomes difficult to demonstrate the harmful effects of those two substances via marathon performance. We are in a similar situation to the 50s with smoking. What makes things more complex is that those two kill performance in a more subtle way - the impact is less than smoking, maybe the order of magnitude of 5 minutes in the marathon. So things like talent, training, and individual variations in adaptation to alcohol and caffeine could easily mask the damage.

What is my reasoning for thinking that those to substances could be the performance killers? In Utah we have an interesting mix of the population. 70% are LDS, 30% are not. Out of the 70% who are LDS, half are active. So 35% of the population is committed, at least in the public eye, to abstaining from alcohol and caffeine, while the other 65% are not. There is no other state I am aware of that would have that many people committed to abstaining from those two substances, which is what makes Utah interesting. So, it is reasonable to expect that if those two, or any other distinguishing elements of active LDS vs the rest of the world did not have an influence on one's performance in distance running, you would see about 35% active LDS runners in the top 5 list in the state.

Here is my list of Utah Top 5 (feel free to make corrections):

Josh Rohatinsky
Josh McAdams
Hobie Call
Teren Jameson
Trever Ball

I am certain that the Joshes and Hobbie are active LDS. I know that Teren has served a mission, and comes from a strong LDS family, so there is a high chance he is still active. Not 100% sure about Trever, but I would be very surprised if he was not. Even without Teren and Trever, we've got more active LDS people in the top 5 that we would expect from the population analysis.

Of course, there could be a number of other things that cause this discrepancy (other things active LDS runners do/not do), and we did not probe deeper (analyze top 100), but I would leave this as an exercise for the follow-up posts.

[Craig Green]

I would say that your average LDS runner is much more likely to abstain from alcohol than caffeine. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'm willing to bet that a significant amount of the 35% you're talking about stay away from alcohol but take the occassional GU & cliff shots, drink energy drinks or cola, take caffeine pills, etc.

[Jon Allen]

I think a lot of the elite, world class marathoners watch everything they eat and drink, or at least enough that I would say the current world records have not been slowed down due to poor health habits.

[Emily Jameson]

Teren is very active LDS, and abstains from caffeine and alcohol.  He takes gu, but not the ones with caffeine in them, and doesn't drink soda at all (except for the occasional rootbeer float.)

[Paul Petersen]

Agreeing with what Jon said, I think most true elites live very disciplined lifestyles and abstain from junk. Another interesting thing is that the more you run, the less you even want "unhealthy stuff". For example, I don't think I've had beer in the the house since late spring. And I've probably had about 1 drink in the last 8 weeks. Not that I think that's a performance-killer, but it's interesting what the body naturally craves when in high-performance mode. Basically just gatorade and water!

That said, I think alcohol and caffeine often get picked on, while worse things are overlooked. Personally, I think processed food, junk food, sweets, and fatty red meats are much bigger deal-killers than an occasional drink or a cup of coffee. So is staying up too late at night and not getting enough sleep. So is a stressful job or a job where you are on your feet all day. There are lots of things that can slow you down.

[Ted Leblow]

Ok, although I agree that Caffeine and Alcohol can be performance killers I do tend to agree with Paul in the sense that occasional usage does not a performance kill and that there is definetely bigger performance killers out there. I choose not to take caffeine or drink alcohol and I think I am healthier for it. But I do not think an individual that has an occasional drink or an occasional cup of coffee will suffer because of it. However, if one is a habitual user of either substance then it will definetely have an impact on performance. Other bad habits can have just as much if not more of a detriment on performance, such as sleep and work habits. I also agree that the majority of world class athletes are very serious about their diet, etc... so it is not as big of a factor at that level. For example I doubt Haile or Tergat drink alcohol or caffinated products on a regular basis or enough to impact thier performances. In fact the majority are probably living the Word of Wisdom 99% of the time and don't even know it.

[Chad]

There is no doubt that any athlete interested in performing well must be conscious of what goes into the body. However, performance must be viewed holistically.  I agree with Paul that there are factors beyond diet, including general genetic make up, stress levels, sleep patterns, general life coping skills, personal drive and determination, willpower, recovery routines (stretching, massage therapy, icing), posture, and a million other things we have been conditioned (consciously and subconsciously) to do or not do that all have a cumulative effect on performance. 

With this in mind, if the question really has to do with what are the effects of alcohol and caffeine consumption on performance, why aren't we talking about the science?  The studies are better able to control for the variables than our own anecdotal perspectives.

[Paul Petersen]

With this in mind, if the question really has to do with what are the effects of alcohol and caffeine consumption on performance, why aren't we talking about the science?  The studies are better able to control for the variables than our own anecdotal perspectives.

Science?? Those scientist guys are all biased quacks! They promote hogwash like Global Warming! 

Seriously, most scientific studies I've seen on caffeine show it to be a performance enhancer or to have mixed results. Here's an little web article with a bibliography to get us started:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/caffeine_sports.htm

The article mentions good things and bad things.

Personally, I don't like the diuretic effect, so I don't drink coffee before exercise. I also generally don't drink more than one cup a day. Two cups is considered "moderate", by the way. 0 calories though, can't beat that! My main problem with alcohol is similar: the diuretic affect. Also the empty calories. I am so focused on hydrating and refueling during the evening, there is no room anymore for my beloved beer.

But back to Chad's point: let's see some scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles!! Gut feelings and anecdotal evidence will not hack it on this board!

[Sasha Pachev]

Chad:
Here is a problem if somebody wanted to do a study on alcohol and caffeine. How do you control the numerous other factors, some known, some known but difficult to quantify, and some unknown? The best, if not the only way is to find a very large population that stands out from the rest of the population by their abstinence from alcohol and caffeine, and compare their performances to the rest of the population. The challenge you have that there are not many places (I actually do not know of any) outside of Utah where you could find such a group.

Like I said earlier, it took a while before it became apparent that smoking is harmful to performance in endurance events, and it was not until enough of the general population stopped smoking. So if bad thing Y is being done by the dominant majority, it would not be an automatic disqualifier from being a top runner until the dominant majority stops doing it. Then this starts capturing people with talent, they are able to more fully develop it, and make it impossible for anybody doing the bad thing Y to beat them, which pushes them out of podium.

[Chad]

The secrets of Hobie Call's diet revealed:

http://www.hvjournal.com/articles.php?id=371

[Chad]

Chad:
Here is a problem if somebody wanted to do a study on alcohol and caffeine. How do you control the numerous other factors, some known, some known but difficult to quantify, and some unknown?

That is the problem, precisely.  It certainly can't be done by looking at five guys.  The only way is with the science. 

Saying that "Elite runner X does 'bad thing' Y and he is still fast" is an argument built on a false premise that "Y" is bad for all people at all times in all circumstances.  I can't join you in that conclusion without weighing the evidence.

On the other hand, if you want to make an argument that being active LDS--or having another religious affiliation--encourages better performance because it gives people a context for their lives, or a greater sense of purpose, or a desire to maximize their natural gifts, I think those are all reasonable conclusions for individuals to make for themselves.  As with alcohol, caffeine, sleep, stress, etc . . . these are all factors that are part of a larger whole. 

[Sasha Pachev]

Regarding science. A runner needs to learn to be ahead of it in order to reach his full potential.  For example, to my knowledge the science has not yet validated the benefits of high mileage. What I see in the running community, though, is that those who go strictly by the science are getting beat by those who properly use their experience and intuition. You do not find anybody going sub-2:10 off less than 90 miles a week, with the average in that group being 120, and peaks reaching as high as 180. Yet science has not validated it!

To add some heat to the discussion, for those of us how are married, most of us, I assume, made the decision on who to marry without reading even one peer-reviewed journal article. I do not think we even bothered or considered necessary to do such a simple thing as a criminal background check. Yet this was one of the most important decisions we've ever made. It was a good one for me. I hope others can share the same feelings about that decision. Most of our decisions, even the very important ones, are done using our own version of "Sasha Science" - some logical reasoning, a bit of the scientific method, maybe even some mathematical calculations, trial and error, early elimination of obviously bad choices, then draw on our experience and intuition, reach into the depth of our soul, for some people (at least for me) pray to try to find out God's will when this is a matter of particular importance, and then say, this is the way it is going to be. We are perfectly capable of discovering important truths and making really good decisions using a process that does not exactly meet the rigors of being able to be published in a scientific journal. In short, a bit of common sense and experience with the subject more often than not will beat a convoluted scientific research.

Now even more heat for the discussion. Chad said top 5 was not good enough. Here comes more data. Trials Qualifiers in the marathon from Utah for 2000, 2004, 2008:

2000:

Paul Pilkington
Ed Eyestone
Craig Lawson
Dennis Simonaitis

2004:

Curtis Moore
Trevor Pettingill
Joe Wilson
Corbin Talley
Matt Harmer

2008:

Hobie Call
Teren Jameson

In the absence of the direct data, I am going to infer alcohol/caffeine usage through known religious affiliation. Dennis is not LDS, I do not have a direct confirmation for Paul Pilkington, but I have some strong supporting data - father of four, son served an LDS mission, so I think it is fairly safe to assume active LDS for him, I do have a direct confirmation of everybody else as active LDS otherwise. So now we have 11 people with 10 of them being active LDS. Does that yet make a case for active LDS in Utah being like [url href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin]Kalenjin[/url] tribe in Kenya? Most of the top Kenyan runners come from the Kalenjin tribe, even though it is not a dominant majority.

[Chad]

Sasha--you will get no argument from me that you don't need science to make every decision.  Life would be so boring if that were the case.  The joy of life is in experiencing for ones self what the world has to offer and making decisions based on those experiences.  There are many areas of life that I am very glad science remains apparently silent.

However, what you're proposing is a testable scientific hypothesis. It cannot be supported based on a fallacy like "X qualified for the Oly Trials. X belongs to Y religion. Therefore, belonging to Y religion means you will qualify for the Oly Trials."

Anyway, you could never win your argument because another elite athlete may be able to say that they attribute their performance to regular caffeine consumption.  Why isn't their anecdotal evidence as good as yours?  My guess is that they would be able to compile a very long list of top performers as you have.

Besides, isn't it kind of patronizing to the outstanding Utah runners you identified to say that the single thing that separates them from other Utah runners is an (unproven) lack of consumption of alcohol and caffeine?  Neither of us can speak for these guys (maybe some will chime in to speak for themselves), but think their success probably has more to do with things like relentlessly smart training, uncompromising will to win, discipline in how they spend their time, study in the sport, general diet, sleep patterns, flexibility to make running a priority over other areas of life, family and community support, scholarship and sponsorship assistance, etc.  Elite athletes--like all humans--are complex organisms.  To say that one or two factors will predict success does not do justice to the total personal commitment it takes to compete at the highest levels.  You are at this level yourself, Sasha. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Finally, it seems to me that with all the millions of dollars poured into sport science every year, and the many athletes who are willing to put their careers and livelihood on the line by taking performance enhancing drugs that may (at best) improve performance by a fraction of a percent, if all it took to get the edge was not using alcohol or caffeine there would be an explosion of teetotaling and decaffeinating.

So, what does the science say?

[Sasha Pachev]

Chad:

I do not think you understood my argument. Suppose you have a large population that consists of N people with behavior X, and M people without behavior X with N and M being large enough to matter statistically. Out of this population we have a sub-group that are runners and are trying to do their best. If feature X has no influence on running performance, if you sampled a large group of top runners the ratio of behavior X runners vs non-behavior X runners would be  N : M. What I am saying is if the population is the state of Utah, and the behavior X is being active LDS, you are not getting N:M ratio in any significant list of the top runners. I listed the Trials Qualifiers, but you would find similar patterns if you dug deeper.

Yes, abstinence from caffeine and alcohol is by far not the only factor of success. The athletes I've mentioned had a lot more going for them than this mere behavioral element. But, had this not been a factor (either that or something else that active LDS people do that is different from what the rest of the Utah population would), for every one active LDS top athlete in Utah you would see 2 peers that are not. So there is something in the LDS culture that makes one a faster runner. Ban on tobacco is number of one influence, I think. But the smoking rate in Utah is only 11%, it would have to be close to 65% in order for tobacco to be the only factor to see the patterns we are seeing. Do you have any other suspects to account for the remainder of the difference?

Here is one possible explanation. Ban on alcohol is probably the big one. While very small amounts of alcohol may indeed have no negative influence on running performance, few people are able to keep them small enough not to matter unless they draw the strict line for themselves of none at all. Kind of like walking on the edge of the cliff - somebody with good coordination will walk right along just fine, somebody less coordinated will fall down. If you take 200 Boy Scouts to a cliff area, 100 random ones are allowed to walk on the edge of the cliff, the other 100 are not, the first group will probably experience a fatality or two, while the second will come home whole. While most scouts individually might be OK walking on the edge of the cliff, a ban on cliff edge walking ensures safety for everyone. So we are possibly seeing the effects of "do not walk on the edge of the cliff", nobody in the group falls off or in other words does loses his ability to run at his true potential, while the other group experiences attrition as far as the ability to run is concerned. Except you do not see it with a naked eye, only in some odd statistical patterns.



 

[Michelle Lowry]

I don't really have the time to pour over the scientific studies, but I have taken classes on how academics perform research, and I have taken master's level statistics classes on how to do statistical analysis on research data.  Thus, I can confidently say that you cannot use Utah as a sample as Sasha would like to, and then generalize those findings onto the running community at large.  Also, when you do studies you can have moderating and mediating variables and determine the net effect of caffeine and coffee.  I am not sure if these studies have been done for elite long distance runners, but science is king if you want scientific knowledge.

That being said, I have been "detoxed" from caffiene for about 10 weeks.  I was taking in 3-6 cans of caffienated diet soda and realized it might help my running to knock it off.  I now sleep more, drink more water, and I feel much healthier and balanced.  For me, that is all the evidence I need.

I think broadening the topic to diet in general is helpful too.   I ran for BYU as a bottom of the barrel walk on.  I would always finish my workouts behind the gifted but less serious all americans on the team, and I would be SO, SO frustrated when I would see them with bags of fast food, woofing down the french fries, while I would watch what I eat and run twice the miles as them.  They did get more serious as the years went on, and they did become even better, but I think natural talent and the genes to be thin give some an advantage over others of us. 

So there's my non-scientific two cents, and my plug for science.  If anyone finds time to do a literature review in this area, we could all benefit.